Let's start with two sets of data.
In this year's Australian Open women's singles final, Barty defeated Collins in two straight sets 6-3, 7-6 (2), taking 67 minutes and scoring a total of 131 points from both sides.
In this year's Australian Open men's singles final, Nadal defeated Medvedev in five sets 2-6, 6-7 (5) /6-4/6-4/7-5, taking 324 minutes and scoring a total of 370 points.
The prize money for male and female players is the same, and the ticket prices for spectators are similar, but the matches presented are far apart. This year's Australian Open men's singles final and women's singles final time-consuming ratio is 4.8:1, the total score ratio is 2.8:1, the above data reflects the huge difference between men's and women's finals.
It is not only the data that reflects the difference, but also the audience's experience is also an important basis for judging the two finals. The men's singles final was almost full, and the audience kept watching 1 o'clock in the morning, which was called an ups and downs, epic final.
The attendance rate in the women's singles final is similar to that in the men's singles final, which is very much related to the australian players breaking into the final. In terms of the process and excitement of the game alone, the women's singles final is much weaker than the men's singles final. Even if you look at the entire tennis world, women's tennis rarely has an epic game.
Feminists demand equality between men and women, while feminists argue that men are already in an unequal position in Grand Slam competitions — they pay more physically, contribute better games, attract more box office, but take the same prize money as women's players.
Many years ago, it was proposed that the Women's Grand Slam tournament should also be changed to the same best-of-five set system as the men's, or that the men's matches should also be changed to the same best-of-three format as the women's. This year's Australian Open men's singles final once again proved that it is almost impossible for men's matches to be changed to a best-of-three format, because a best-of-three format is almost impossible to produce epic matches.
Since Chris O'Neal won the Australian Open women's singles title in 1978, Australia has not won the title in 44 years. Therefore, in this year's Australian Open women's singles final, Australian fans are more looking forward to victory than to the ups and downs and suspenseful games. The problem is that if you consider that this is a Grand Slam final, you shouldn't just think about winning or losing, but also the excitement of the game and the level of confrontation.
Australian homegrown Barty won the game in straight sets, and if there is a chance to play another set, will Collins stage a reversal like Nadal? We never know the answer because she simply didn't have the chance to try.
Probably nervous or tired, Collins apparently didn't get into form in time for the start of the final, as Nadal did against Medvedev in the men's singles final. Collins only found her form in the second set, leading 5-1 at one point before Barty trailed the score to 6-6 and finally ended the game by grabbing seven.
After losing two sets in a row, Collins never had a chance to equalize. This once again shows that the three-set, best-of-three system has made the game less tortuous, the audience and players seem to be still unfinished, and the game is over. Barty won the game, and the crowd got up to cheer, but the tension was far less intense than the men's singles final a day later.
However, the men's match of five sets and three wins does not always surprise and stimulate the audience. In last year's Australian Open final, Djokovic beat Medvedev in just 113 minutes, and the audience had not yet watched it, and the game ended in a hurry. The game is relatively boring without suspense, twists and turns, and the spectators who buy tickets are not to watch one person slaughter another, but to watch a fierce fight.
Of course, women's matches are not always quick decisions within 90 minutes. For example, in last year's Wimbledon women's singles final, It took Barty nearly two hours to defeat Ka Pliskova, which was the first time in the past nine years that the Wimbledon women's singles final hit the decider. Last year's quick-to-finish Australian Open men's singles finals were rare, and last year's long Wimbledon women's singles finals were also rare, which is the most obvious difference between men's and women's Grand Slam events.
Women's matches rarely feature epic matches, not only with the format of three sets and two wins, but also with the players who compete. Since the decline of Serena's dominance, the women's tennis world has shown a very open competitive pattern. Since the US Open final in September 2019, Barty and Naomi Osaka are the only two players to have competed in a Grand Slam final more than once.
Many female players are reaching a Grand Slam final for the first time, and they are more likely to be nervous and ill-prepared before the game. After the game starts, they usually need time to get used to the game, and when they just get used to it or just after they get into shape, the game is in the end.
Some women's players also hope to change the format to five sets and three wins, and such a change will obviously bring the following two problems: one is that female players are more physically exhausted, and they are more likely to have lack of physical fitness or injuries in the final stage; second, the time spent increases, and the schedule becomes tense.
Well, the compromise is that the women's matches in the first week of the Grand Slam still use a three-set best-of-three system, and by the quarter-finals, it will be changed to a five-set best-of-three system, and the schedule and player physical reserves will not be a big problem, after all, Grand Slam players play a day off.
After such reforms, the controversy over equal rights for men and women will also be reduced, and the women's competition may also be epic.
Why not give it a try? (Source: Tennis House Author: Yun Cirrus Yunshu)